Priests for Life

 

OTHER SECTIONS
America Will Not Reject Abortion Until America
Sees Abortion


Prayer Campaign

Join our Facebook Cause
"Pray to End Abortion"


Take Action

Social Networking

Rachel's Vineyard,
A Ministry of Priests For Life


Silent No More Awareness Campaign, A Project
of Priests For Life

Clergy Resources
SIGN UP FOR EMAIL


 

Letter 131

Pro-choicers say pro-lifers are insensitive to the needs of poor women who can't afford more children.

If you were pregnant and struggling to make ends meet, what would you want? At heart, you believe abortion is wrong. But you have hungry kids to think about.

How would you feel if somebody offered to help you or your spouse get a better job? If they offered to pay the doctor bills? If they helped you move into more affordable housing?

How would you feel if somebody helped you get on WIC and foodstamps to tide you over? If they drove you to the grocery store when your car broke down? If they fixed your car for free?

Would you think these people were insensitive to your needs?

How would you feel about somebody who told you they'd only help you if you could come up with $300 in cash? If the only help they offered you was an abortion? If you were injured in the abortion and wound up with additional medical expenses and lost several weeks of work as a result?

Would you think these people were insensitive to your needs?

As soon as you really look at what pro-lifers and pro-choicers do for pregnant women, the whole "insensitivity" argument falls to the ground.

Letter 210

An abortion advocate recently said, "Why don't you pro-lifers help some of the people who are already here?"

To begin with, unborn children are already here. What we're trying to do is see that they are allowed to remain here alive. Secondly, this whole question is a fraud. What kind of mentality says that when someone prevents the killing of an innocent person, they suddenly become responsible for solving all the world's problems?

I get sick of this kind of deceptive attack on the pro-life movement. First off, there are over 2,500 abortion alternative agencies in the United States. In fact, there are more of them than there are abortion mills. They provide counseling, clothing, assistance with other children, help with adoption, post-natal instruction, pre-natal care, help in continuing their education, room and board during and after pregnancy, post-abortion counseling, and so on.

Secondly, these centers have to solicit donations since, unlike abortion advocates, they don't have a multi-billion dollar industry supporting them. But almost every pro-lifer approached is also contributing to other ministries and organizations whose sole purpose is to help people such as prisoners, people with physical and mental handicaps, single moms, and the elderly.

If pro-choicers are so concerned with helping people, they could stop killing babies, and pro-lifers would have even more money to spend on the remaining social problems. There's nothing we'd like to see more.

Letter 211

An abortion advocate recently said, "Why don't you pro-lifers help some of the people who are already here?"

I'd like to know why pro-choicers don't help people. Other than offering to kill her baby--if she has the money--what do they do for a pregnant woman who needs help?

When you press the question, they will try to talk about all the "counseling" they give. What they mean is abortion counseling. But if a 15-year-old girl comes into an abortion mill with no money, no clothes, no food, no home to go to, no one else to help her, and no intention of having an abortion, what services does that facility provide for her?

The truth is, the abortion industry doesn't actually provide any services other than abortion. And if you go to work in a crisis pregnancy center, you learn that when a woman, or young girl, needs help but doesn't want an abortion, the abortion mill will give her the number of one of our crisis pregnancy organizations! That's fine with us, but it says a lot about the people who say their only mission in life is to help women. If they can't make a buck off her, they send her to people they classify as "the enemy" for real help!

Even an abortionist knows that for a dead baby, you go to a pro-choicer. For help, you go to the pro-lifers.

Letter 212

An abortion advocate asked, "Why don't you pro-lifers help some of the people who are already here?"

Abortion fanatics try to make pro-lifers look bad by bringing up non-abortion-related social problems. They will say something like: "Since you say you have all this concern for other people, what are you doing for the homeless?" Well, we're pretty busy just trying to stop abortionists from slaughtering babies. We would like to address other problems, but we only have so many resources. When the choice is between helping someone who doesn't have a place to live, or someone else being killed, we will obviously have to choose the latter.

But I do have a solution to the homeless problem. Since there are far more abortion advocates in America than there are homeless people, why don't these guys get together and agree to each take in just one homeless person? I'm sure most of them have a spare bedroom, plenty of food in the house, and possibly even an extra car he can use. All they have to do is just go down to the local mission or skid row area, pick out one homeless person and take him home, and the problem is solved without controversy, without tax money, and without waiting years for it to happen.

After all, pro-lifers have always offered to adopt any and every baby spared from abortion. We're willing to take in and care for each of the people whose lives we're fighting to save.

Why don't abortion advocates live up to the same standard?

Letter 213

An abortion advocate recently said, "Why don't you pro-lifers help some of the people who are already here?"

Pro-abortion people constantly say that since we're so concerned for the unborn we should be willing to adopt them all, and that's fine, we agree! After all, there are pro-lifers (and others) standing in line right now for the privilege of adopting a baby. So if the abortionists will agree not to kill them, we'll agree to take them off their hands.

But at the same time, since they're claiming to be so concerned about the homeless, we are going to insist that they apply the same standards they're so anxious to see applied to us, and which we gladly accept. So, let's see abortion advocates each go out and take home somebody from skid row or the local rescue mission.

Of course, we know they aren't about to do this. They never had any interest in homeless people to begin with. They simply thought they could exploit their plight as a way to keep from having to talk about abortion. They know legal abortion is impossible to defend, and they're looking for a way not to have to.

If they were as concerned about the homeless as pro-lifers are about women and children, there would be no homeless people because they'd all be living in abortion advocates' houses. So who is it that doesn't really care?

Letter 214

Pro-abortion extremists have voiced the accusation, "Pro-lifers only care about life from conception to birth."

I'd like to point out that pro-choicers only care about women from conception to abortion. If a woman doesn't want an abortion--or if she is injured by the abortion--they lose interest.

Think about it. Planned Parenthood has an annual budget of over $300 million, much of which is taxpayers' money. How many homes for unwed mothers do they run? None! Once a woman makes the decision not to abort, she is no longer a possible source of income, and therefore she is no longer a source of interest.

If a woman is poor, does Planned Parenthood give her diapers and baby formula? Does Planned Parenthood baby-sit for her so she can attend classes at the community college? Does Planned Parenthood take calls from her at 3:00 a.m. when the baby is crying and she doesn't know what to do? No. They take all that tax money and do one thing with it--kill children.

Pro-lifers see a child with a problem. Planned Parenthood sees the child as a problem.

Letter 215

A common question of abortion supporters is, "Why is it that the politicians who oppose abortion are the very ones who always vote against legislation to help people?"

This argument assumes that opposing a certain piece of legislation means you don't want to solve the problem the legislation claims to address. Abortion advocates want pro-life politicians to appear as mean-spirited, tight-fisted people who care about nothing other than oppressing poor, helpless women. But there is nothing that says the passage of a particular piece of legislation, or the creation of a new government agency, or the implementation of a new policy, will help a given problem. It could very well be that the politicians whom abortion enthusiasts castigate simply don't believe the nation is always best served by turning its problems over to the same people who run the Pentagon, the IRS, or the Postal Service.

There is such a thing as discernment. The way to help people is to carefully consider every proposal based on its own merits, not get suckered into every boondoggle that comes along.

If more politicians would investigate programs carefully before investing our tax money in them, we wouldn't have the massive national debt we have. Being anti-swindle is not being anti-person.

Letter 216

Pro-abortion extremists have voiced the accusation, "Pro-lifers only care about life from conception to birth."

I'll tell you a typical story, and you decide if this is true.

Susanne Logan was healthy, 35 years old, and pregnant. She went to the Hillview abortion mill in Maryland. The "safe and legal" abortion she bought there left her in a coma. Four months later, she awoke in a nursing home, unable to walk or speak.

Pro-choicers had no time for Susanne. They were too busy writing legislation to protect the abortionist who injured her from lawsuits and regulations.

Two grandmothers from a local pro-life church befriended Susanne. With help from a local pro-life pregnancy center, they raised money to buy Susanne an electronic speech synthesizer.

Meanwhile, an attorney helped her to file suit against the abortionist and the clinic. After three years, she finally got a settlement. She planned to return to California to be near her family. That never happened, because within a month she was dead.

Pro-choicers never lifted a finger to help Susanne. It seems they only cared about Susanne from the moment of her conception to the moment of her abortion. After that, they lost interest.

The message they send to women is: you can go back to your abusive boyfriend; you can end up in a nursing home; or you can die for all we care. As long as you have the abortion, that's all that matters.

Letter 416

Your coverage of the recent pro-abortion march featured a photo of a woman holding a sign reading, "Women are not incubators."

No, they are not, although that seems to be the pro-choice view of them.

To a pro-choicer, once a woman becomes pregnant, she is no longer fully human. They never come right out and say this, but they make it very clear. What else can they mean by all their claims that women need abortion to fit into society? What else can explain their obsession with making sure that abortions take place the moment the idea crosses the woman's mind?

When women die during abortions, are pro-choicers upset? I've never seen them express any distress. But when two non-pregnant women were killed by John Salvi in Massachusetts, the pro-choicers were outraged.

How can we account for this except to say that they consider pregnant women to be subhuman creatures that need surgery (abortion) to be made fully human again.

In my opinion, women are people, whether they're pregnant or not.

Letter 418

Yesterday's pro-abortion rally offered up the usual chant: "Pro-life, that's a lie; you don't care if women die."

I don't understand why pro-lifers should be held responsible for the women that pro-choice people are threatening to kill. After all, every woman who ever died during an illegal abortion was killed by a pro-choicer. Every woman who ever died during a legal abortion was killed by a pro-choicer. And in the future, every woman who will be maimed, raped, or killed inside a legal abortion clinic will have been maimed, raped, or killed by a pro-choicer. Those are facts.

Another fact is that no pregnant woman who has gone to a crisis pregnancy center run by pro-lifers for help has ever died as a result. Neither have they been raped or turned into drooling vegetables.

Now, I have a proposal. When we finally return legal protection to the unborn (and make no mistake about it, that will happen), there is a 100-percent, sure-fire way to guarantee that no woman ever gets hurt or killed during an abortion. All we have to do is get everyone on both sides of the issue to sign a statement agreeing that they will never perform an illegal abortion. It's that simple.

So, to all you pro-choicers, I'm ready to sign up today. How about you? Do you care if women die?

Letter 429

At yesterday's abortion-rights rally, participants regurgitated the usual chant: "Pro-life, that's a lie; you don't care if women die."

Does anyone else see how really stupid that statement is? These people are claiming that women will be killed during illegal abortions if legal ones aren't allowed. What they're leaving out is the fact that whenever a woman is maimed, raped, or killed during an abortion, she is maimed, raped, or killed by someone who is pro-choice--not pro-life. And that's true whether the abortion is legal or illegal.

Any way you look at it, what these pro-choice extremists are really saying is, "Either you let us kill a bunch of babies, or we're going to kill a bunch of women!"

What I can't figure out is whether all this "women will die" rhetoric is just political posturing or if these people honestly believe that we should be held accountable for the women they're threatening to kill.

Letter 430

The chant at yesterday's pro-abortion rally was the now shop-worn chin drivel, "Pro-life, that's a lie; you don't care if women die." They went on, ad nauseum, with their dire warnings about the horror of women being killed by dangerous illegal abortions.

What they consistently, and quite conveniently, ignore are the incredible number of women who are being butchered, sexually assaulted, and killed--right now--inside completely legal abortion clinics. Today, the pro-choice community is perfectly willing to write-off these women as just martyrs for the cause. (Apparently, they've concluded that General Patton was right when he said that victories are not won by dying for your cause but by making the other guy die for his cause.)

The other thing they are conveniently ignoring is the fact that abortions--be they legal or illegal--are always performed by pro-choice people, not pro-lifers. It's obvious that if these pro-choice extremists were really serious about not wanting to see women killed in illegal abortions, all they would have to do is refuse to ever do illegal abortions!

Of course, they won't do that. Many have already admitted that if abortion is made illegal again, they'll just crank up the illegal abortion network they used to run. Their cynical threat to kill women if they can't kill babies is nothing more than political extortion. The only question is how long American women will put up with being exploited in such a shabby fashion.

 

 

 

Priests for Life
PO Box 141172 • Staten Island, NY 10314
Tel. 888-735-3448, (718) 980-4400 • Fax 718-980-6515
mail@priestsforlife.org